Can paramount save their foundering Star Trek franchise?
- Thread starter kirkstheman
- Start date
nice to know the MS Paint skills are still sharp...
Certainly not the pair on Riker.
Lumen said:
Oh, man.
Why?
Why?
1. The actor's age is going to progress faster than the character's, believability is going to go down the further they push.
2. Once people see this movie and go out and watch TOS, they will be disappointed and confused. They will not continue with Trek as it will look like they don't have their act together.
3. They will end up alienating and disappointing potential new fns. This will be extremely difficult to overcome, if they can at all.
4. It is a mistake to rehash TOS in any form, there isnt enough room left in the era to make any significant contributions. They will be tripping over canon left and right.
So it's impossible for them to, say, move forward in time as they scripts are made?
The point falls flat, anyway. Actors can play a variety of ages. Tom Welling has played a teenage Clark Kent for years believably enough for that show to be among the highest rated on its network. The young men and women in the Harry Potter films have aged significantly faster than their counterparts, but those films are still blockbusters — and the difference between 14 and 17 is much larger than the difference between 23 and 28.
Sorry, no one is going to go out and watch TOS after seeing this movie. Did the public at large go and look for old Mission: Impossible tapes after seeing those Cruise action vehicles? That you would even suggest this shows how out of line with reality your perception of this situation is. Disappointed and confused... that's priceless.
You've said nothing at all here.
The original series only covers a fraction of the original 5-year mission, and the time gap between the series and the films are similarly unexplored. They have tons of space to work with, before, during, and after the original series. That you can't see that is only indicative of your close-mindedness, your lack of imagination, and your tendency to contort the facts to support a foolish preconceived notion.
Kirk became an admiral, and was chief of Starfleet operations (whatever that means). Spock went back to Vulcan to try and purge himself of his emotions. You've got the time between TOS and TMP confused with the time between TMP and TWOK.
But that's neither here nor there. If people are motivated to discover TOS after seeing this movie, I'm sure they'll be intelligent enough to understand that there's differences between the 40-year-old TV show and the brand-new movie they just saw. The old Adam West Batman doesn't seem to have any trouble being appreciated for what it was despite Tim Burton's films or the animated series or Batman Begins.
It's clear that you don't like this film, it doesn't appeal to you, and you don't want to see it made. So just say that and stop projecting onto the world at large, unless you've got Gallup poll data to back up your assertions.
But that's neither here nor there. If people are motivated to discover TOS after seeing this movie, I'm sure they'll be intelligent enough to understand that there's differences between the 40-year-old TV show and the brand-new movie they just saw. The old Adam West Batman doesn't seem to have any trouble being appreciated for what it was despite Tim Burton's films or the animated series or Batman Begins.
It's clear that you don't like this film, it doesn't appeal to you, and you don't want to see it made. So just say that and stop projecting onto the world at large, unless you've got Gallup poll data to back up your assertions.
i don't get why people think filling in every minute gap is gonna be so compelling when there's so much other stuff they could have done
What, like another story set in the 24th century with magic technobabble and perfect people and plot holes you can pilot an uber-kewl Reman battleship through?
There's another sure-fire $43 million, opens-at-#2-against-a-romantic-comedy yawn for you.
There's another sure-fire $43 million, opens-at-#2-against-a-romantic-comedy yawn for you.
How exactly continuing onward into the 24th Century and One-Half Century and beyond with the Next-Next Generation not doing the same thing?
And filling in isn't what makes something compelling, its how you tell the story as well as the general fun you bring to it when you do the telling...
Sharr
Everyone here tries to develop a vocabulary to discredit everyone. Like a movie in the future would be same same 24th ect ect.
If they wanted to re-imagine Star Trek for new audiences they could have made a new setting, new crew, new status-quo, new everything.
If they wanted to re-imagine Star Trek for new audiences they could have made a new setting, new crew, new status-quo, new everything.
Yeah but there's something exciting about not knowing where you're gonna end up. Isn't that Star Trek's very premise??
The Enterprise cant encounter something we haven't seen before if it's stuck inbetween some gap without it being some wierd why didn't they mention that before thing.
Whatever happened on the rest of TOS five year mission is relatively inconsequential at this point, and definitely not worth the pains of recasting and trampling upon the show's legacy.
The story isn't ever about where you end up, its about how you got there.
No the premise to "Boldy Go..." shouldn't be confused with timeline or points in space. Some times boldly going is actually an internal idea worth exploring and the "adventure" is a means to an end. The end being a newer understanding of the human dream to better itself.
All that can be done in 23rd Century or the 25th - but neither "setting" holds anything more compelling then the other since the setting is just that a stage to work from.
Creating "new" characters isn't a sure fix and there are times when looking to where it all started is the best way to go. Trek has gone way far afield of what it was. Time to go back to basics.
Do real people recount everything they've ever run into in their lives? Never met a person who runs down or always calls back his previous adventures - actually doing that isn't even part of the Star Trek weekly episodic formula...
I can think of a hundred things (more if I put some effort into it) the Enterprise or her crew before [or during the series run even] or even after "Turnabout Indruder" could have run into. Certianly someone at Pocket Books thinks so - or they'd never have been able to turn out books in the interim between Trek films.
For that matter if what you say is true (its not) certain Fanfilms wouldn't be able to come up with stories either but yet they are managing to just that. with even former Trek writers. Star Trek New Voyagers proves there are or can be more adventures on the original ship. Imagine that?
Only a (self-)limited view thinks all the stories have been told or can be told about the orginal Enterprise.
basically your argument is: Just because you can't come up with an idea for an adventure in this era, no one else is creative enough to do so either. But its just not true, someone clearly did and they're making a film about it.
Sharr
So, reimagining TOS is supposed to invigorate Star Trek, give it a huge surge in fanbase, and keep it running for the next 40+ years.
I don't think so. This is the main reason I haven't felt good about Trek XI.
While TOS is what made me a Star Trek fan, I realized a long time ago that it had had it's day, it certainly was awesome, but it is time to move on. I would like whatever gaps there are in the TOS history to remain gaps. I don't want every aspect of TOS demystified. We have had numerous books set in the TOS era to whet our appetite for TOS era Trek, granted it is not canon, but it IS Trek.
While I can understand Nimoy's enthusiasm, he IS afterall getting a movie that is centered around HIS character, I don't think a character centric movie is the right thing to do. This is a similarity to Nemesis which was so Data centric I found it annoying. They will undoubtedly roll out some Spock past that is going to be so revolutionary, so profound, it's supposed to blow us away.
Paramount has to realize that Trek has lost it's mass market appeal. They have to take measures to rebuild the fanbase by specifically targeting new audiences. I feel the best one is the younger audience that is heavily into the anime scene. An animated show is much less expensive to produce, could generate a tremendous audience, and considerable profits. It could also be a jump point for other projects.
The main reason that Trek hasn't done well in the theaters lately is the fact that people, fans included, aren't WANTING it they way they used to.
In my opinion Star Trek can be saved, but it's not going to be saved by inside the box "big ticket" or recycling their oldest aspect of the franchise TOS. It just doesn't have the same draw that it had in the past.
I happen to feel very strongly about this film. I think that with their inability to come up with something fresh, Paramount is putting the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back on the Star Trek franchise.
I don't think so. This is the main reason I haven't felt good about Trek XI.
While TOS is what made me a Star Trek fan, I realized a long time ago that it had had it's day, it certainly was awesome, but it is time to move on. I would like whatever gaps there are in the TOS history to remain gaps. I don't want every aspect of TOS demystified. We have had numerous books set in the TOS era to whet our appetite for TOS era Trek, granted it is not canon, but it IS Trek.
While I can understand Nimoy's enthusiasm, he IS afterall getting a movie that is centered around HIS character, I don't think a character centric movie is the right thing to do. This is a similarity to Nemesis which was so Data centric I found it annoying. They will undoubtedly roll out some Spock past that is going to be so revolutionary, so profound, it's supposed to blow us away.
Paramount has to realize that Trek has lost it's mass market appeal. They have to take measures to rebuild the fanbase by specifically targeting new audiences. I feel the best one is the younger audience that is heavily into the anime scene. An animated show is much less expensive to produce, could generate a tremendous audience, and considerable profits. It could also be a jump point for other projects.
The main reason that Trek hasn't done well in the theaters lately is the fact that people, fans included, aren't WANTING it they way they used to.
In my opinion Star Trek can be saved, but it's not going to be saved by inside the box "big ticket" or recycling their oldest aspect of the franchise TOS. It just doesn't have the same draw that it had in the past.
I happen to feel very strongly about this film. I think that with their inability to come up with something fresh, Paramount is putting the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back on the Star Trek franchise.
Wow. I haven't seen a chart that convincing since Ross Perot ran for president. I mean it got me to vote for that little Texan Ferengi...oh, wait. I didn't vote for him. Perhaps you'll do better next time.Beyerstein said:
Ten to one - you're flat wrong, this is going to be the start of a new beginning for Trek.
Read the script have we? Care to share? All of the above is assumption and conjecture. Plus there is a world of difference between Data and Spock... never mind totally new film makers behind the cameras.
Like I've said many times: Nimoy's enthusiasm counts for more then anyones pessimistic opinion who hasn't even read the script to make a proper judgment.
largely what you wrote comes across as foot stomping and more telling fear. Fear they might actually do something daring.
I'll take an epic film over a book and would rather Trek be on screen. Here's a secret no matter how many stories you tell there will always be gaps - since unlike say Babylon 5 Star Trek is somewhat random and un-novel like in structure. Not every detail will be filled in and there will as always be room for one more adventure.
Sharr
do you really think there's anyway they can have new actors as kirk spock and mccoy on screen at the same time and have it not look completely silly
To the fans of the original TOS it will appear silly, and not quite the same. The others will watch and not really understand.
They are making Trek XI centered around Spock, supposedly for the general population. The only problem is the general population doesn't understand the significance of Spock. Perhaps they will just remember he's the guy with the pointy ears and the Vulcan salute.
I am still of the opinion that they are barking up the wrong tree with their film and need to go back to the drawing board.
They are making Trek XI centered around Spock, supposedly for the general population. The only problem is the general population doesn't understand the significance of Spock. Perhaps they will just remember he's the guy with the pointy ears and the Vulcan salute.
I am still of the opinion that they are barking up the wrong tree with their film and need to go back to the drawing board.
Similar threads
- Locked
